D&D Movie/TV (Yet another) D&D Movie Speculation thread.

[Mercurius]

But not everyone feels comfortable with that.

In what world do you think this is ever possible or even desireable? And at what cost? What diversity of expression, art, and multiplicity of perspectives are we going to carve away as we try to make everyone feel safe and comfortable about everything? And when did we become a culture that advocates that everyone feels "comfortable" about everything? What is so wrong about experiencing ideas or expressions that challenge or even threaten us?

 

[Jester David]

In what world do you think this is ever possible or even desireable? And at what cost? What diversity of expression, art, and multiplicity of perspectives are we going to carve away as we try to make everyone feel safe and comfortable about everything? And when did we become a culture that advocates that everyone feels "comfortable" about everything? What is so wrong about experiencing ideas or expressions that challenge or even threaten us?

Agreed.
But... I don't look for that kind of content in games, be they board games or roleplaying games. They might even be out of place in most mainstream videogames.
Because when you do upset someone in that kind of content, the financial fallout can hurt the company. Those buisnesses are inherently risk averse.

Yeah, I think a small indie self published RPG can really go fan and push people out of their comfort zones. It can do edgy provocative things. And you know that going in, and the RPG has a responsibility to telegraph that it's not safe.

 

[Parmandur]

In what world do you think this is ever possible or even desireable? And at what cost? What diversity of expression, art, and multiplicity of perspectives are we going to carve away as we try to make everyone feel safe and comfortable about everything? And when did we become a culture that advocates that everyone feels "comfortable" about everything? What is so wrong about experiencing ideas or expressions that challenge or even threaten us?

There is a line to navigate, but it is incontestable that the trash in question was over any reasonable line: it wasn't "challenging," it was just bad.

 

[Jester David]

Either I'm misconstruing your response, or you are much more aggressive in your response than seems reasonable, or productive. Or in appropriate response to what I intended to communicate.

My point was simple. You made several statements that appeared to be absolutes. I pointed out the absurdity of such absolutes and was hoping you would clarify your statements a bit because I felt that the absolutes your listed were not beneficial to supporting your case.

For instance, you laying out the types of public figures that can and can not (in your view) be legitimate sources for entertainment was exactly what I was hoping you would clarify. Animosity not required, please.

In case you didn't get it, I was trying to help you clarify your argument/position, not tear it down.

Sorry. I spend far too much time oneline here arguing with people who seem unfamiliar with compassion or empathy. It has made me judgemental.
I've discussed the editing of these books too many times...

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

In the serie "Game of Thrones" a temple is destroyed, but this couldn't be allowed in a fiction work in the real world. People would feel unconfortable.

We can't trivialize suffering by people from real world. And now people is noticing about the difference between acid humour or the satyre and the toxic propaganda, and a rebellion has started about this. A true debate isn't to try humilliating people with a different point of view and fogorting the respect for human dignity by people with different ideas. We need more empathy and an assertive tone to talk about our society from real life. You can't convice who doesn't trust you because you don't listen and you have disrespected her. And also the speculative fiction and the RPG fiction should respect these limits also. If people suspect a fiction work tries to be ideological propaganda then there is a boycott. Do you remember the movie "the Golden Compass"?

If the antagonist of a work is not Caucasian, then the solution is adding characters from the same race in the faction of the good guys. For example now in a new version in the cinemas of Fu-manchu or "our dinosaur is missing" some Chinese characters would be in the faction of the heroes.

About drows, they aren't a evil race, but followers of a evil deity, and this is totally different. The movie could show good drows because they pray a good deity who teachs to respect for the dignity by humans, humanoids or other sentient species.

 

[Mercurius]

Agreed.
But... I don't look for that kind of content in games, be they board games or roleplaying games. They might even be out of place in most mainstream videogames.
Because when you do upset someone in that kind of content, the financial fallout can hurt the company. Those buisnesses are inherently risk averse.

Yeah, I think a small indie self published RPG can really go fan and push people out of their comfort zones. It can do edgy provocative things. And you know that going in, and the RPG has a responsibility to telegraph that it's not safe.

There is a line to navigate, but it is incontestable that the trash in question was over any reasonable line: it wasn't "challenging," it was just bad.

To be honest, I haven't read the actual text of the product in question. I just generally feel that publishers should publish what they want, and people can vote with their dollar. If its offensive to you, don't buy it - but don't try to stop it from being published. Now if the publisher pulls the product because they're worried about PR, then that's probably a smart business move. But when people start looking around for things to be offended by so they can go after the "offender" and even prohibit them from doing what they do, I have a problem with that.

Consider the recent Louis CK hullabaloo. The social media mob is up in arms about his recent stand-up set. Yet why don't these folks just ignore him? Why do they care? The set wasn't even produced - it was bootlegged.

What worries me greatly is this new norm of trying to shut entertainers and artists down if you are offended by what they are saying, that the mob mentality of social media actually dictates what is and is not allowed/acceptable, and it is based upon what is "comfortable" for as many people as possible, which narrows what can be talked about--and by whom--rather substantially.

 

[Jester David]

To be honest, I haven't read the actual text of the product in question. I just generally feel that publishers should publish what they want, and people can vote with their dollar. If its offensive to you, don't buy it - but don't try to stop it from being published. Now if the publisher pulls the product because they're worried about PR, then that's probably a smart business move. But when people start looking around for things to be offended by so they can go after the "offender" and even prohibit them from doing what they do, I have a problem with that.

Consider the recent Louis CK hullabaloo. The social media mob is up in arms about his recent stand-up set. Yet why don't these folks just ignore him? Why do they care? The set wasn't even produced - it was bootlegged.

What worries me greatly is this new norm of trying to shut entertainers and artists down if you are offended by what they are saying, that the mob mentality of social media actually dictates what is and is not allowed/acceptable, and it is based upon what is "comfortable" for as many people as possible, which narrows what can be talked about--and by whom--rather substantially.

Meh.
I spent a recent chunk of time listening to some George Carlin stuff from the '90s. Because several of his stand-ups are on Amazon Prime. And so much of his bits are on PC culture and bad language and things you're not allowed to say. Again, shows from first Bush presidency 35+ years ago.
This is not new. This is not some modern trend. It's a generational thing.

Okay, yeah, Twitter and the internet makes things spread faster and grow viral quicker. But comedians having to work around PC culture and changing norms isn't unheard of.
The good comedians will rise to to the challenge and find new funny material that works without being needlessly offensive or punching down at trans people with bad jokes about identifying as a place (like Louis CK) or a chimp (Ricky Gervais). The ones who can't will lose work and fade away.

 

[Parmandur]

To be honest, I haven't read the actual text of the product in question. I just generally feel that publishers should publish what they want, and people can vote with their dollar. If its offensive to you, don't buy it - but don't try to stop it from being published. Now if the publisher pulls the product because they're worried about PR, then that's probably a smart business move. But when people start looking around for things to be offended by so they can go after the "offender" and even prohibit them from doing what they do, I have a problem with that.

Consider the recent Louis CK hullabaloo. The social media mob is up in arms about his recent stand-up set. Yet why don't these folks just ignore him? Why do they care? The set wasn't even produced - it was bootlegged.

What worries me greatly is this new norm of trying to shut entertainers and artists down if you are offended by what they are saying, that the mob mentality of social media actually dictates what is and is not allowed/acceptable, and it is based upon what is "comfortable" for as many people as possible, which narrows what can be talked about--and by whom--rather substantially.

Yeah, I'm going to defer the question of principle in this case to the actual specifics of the Vampire text: it is bad, in quality alone.

 

[Jester David]

But when people start looking around for things to be offended by so they can go after the "offender" and even prohibit them from doing what they do, I have a problem with that.

And, again, this was not a product released to the mass market. It was PDF only and had gone out to subscribers who had pre-ordered the books and reviewers. And it was the reviewers who went "this Chechnya section is odd", drawing people's attention to it.

This wasn't some random people "looking around for things to be offended by" but the people who preordered the books going "hey... maybe they shouldn't reference the head of a foreign nation by name, and claim he's using religion and the purge of homosexuals as a front for vampire feeding..."
And then the country itself got involved and upset, threatening legal action.

 

[Mercurius]

Meh.
I spent a recent chunk of time listening to some George Carlin stuff from the '90s. Because several of his stand-ups are on Amazon Prime. And so much of his bits are on PC culture and bad language and things you're not allowed to say. Again, shows from first Bush presidency 35+ years ago.
This is not new. This is not some modern trend. It's a generational thing.

Okay, yeah, Twitter and the internet makes things spread faster and grow viral quicker. But comedians having to work around PC culture and changing norms isn't unheard of.
The good comedians will rise to to the challenge and find new funny material that works without being needlessly offensive or punching down at trans people with bad jokes about identifying as a place (like Louis CK) or a chimp (Ricky Gervais). The ones who can't will lose work and fade away.

What makes "good" comedy is a matter of opinion, but I don't think it has anything to do with to what degree they skirt around sensitive topics. Louis CK's particular brand of humor always involved some degree of speaking the unspeakable and pushing the envelope, so nothing has changed in that regard. He's lost some fans, maybe quite a few, but there are plenty of folks who still enjoy his brand of humor.

I disagree that "nothing has changed" since the 90s. Sure, PC culture rose to prominence sometime around or before the early 90s, but the biggest difference is the ubiquity of social media. I'm guessing George Carlin wouldn't fared all that well against the social media tribunal.

And, again, this was not a product released to the mass market. It was PDF only and had gone out to subscribers who had pre-ordered the books and reviewers. And it was the reviewers who went "this Chechnya section is odd", drawing people's attention to it.

This wasn't some random people "looking around for things to be offended by" but the people who preordered the books going "hey... maybe they shouldn't reference the head of a foreign nation by name, and claim he's using religion and the purge of homosexuals as a front for vampire feeding..."
And then the country itself got involved and upset, threatening legal action.

Which totally makes sense as to why they would pull the product.